Proto-Indo-European verbs
Proto-Indo-European verbs reflect a complex system of morphology, more complicated than the substantive, with verbs categorized according to their aspect, using multiple grammatical moods and voices, and being conjugated according to person, number and tense. In addition to finite forms thus formed, non-finite forms such as participles are also extensively used.
The verbal system is clearly represented in Ancient Greek and Vedic Sanskrit, which closely correspond in nearly all aspects of their verbal systems, and are two of the most well-understood of the early daughter languages of Proto-Indo-European.
Basics
The reconstruction of verb conjugation in Proto-Indo-European is controversial. The system described here is known as the "Cowgill–Rix" system, which explains fairly well the data found in most subfamilies of Indo-European. However, this reconstruction encounters significant difficulties when applied to the Anatolian and to some extent the Tocharian branch. For this reason, this system is often thought to have formed not in PIE proper, but at a later stage, after Anatolian and possibly Tocharian had split off. Even so, there is no consensus concerning what the ancestral system of verb conjugation prior to the split-off of Anatolian looked like, and which Anatolian differences are innovations vs. archaisms.The Cowgill-Rix system involves the interplay of six dimensions with the following variables:
| 3 numbers | singular, dual, plural |
| 3 persons | first, second, third |
| 2 voices | active, middle |
| 4-5 moods | indicative, subjunctive, optative, imperative, possibly injunctive |
| 3 aspects | imperfective, perfective, stative |
| 2 tenses | present, past |
Further, participles can be considered part of the verbal systems although they are not verbs themselves, and as with other PIE nouns, they can be declined across seven or eight cases, for three genders and three numbers.
Building blocks
Roots
The starting point for the morphological analysis of the PIE verb is the root. PIE roots are morphemes with lexical meanings, which usually consist of a single vowel flanked by one or more consonants arranged to very specific rules.Stems and stem formation
Before the final endings – to denote number, person, etc. – can be applied, additional elements may be added to the root. The resulting component here after any such affixion is the stem, to which the final endings can then be added to obtain the conjugated forms.Athematic and thematic stems
Verbs, like nominals, made a basic distinction based on whether a short, ablauting vowel -e- or -o-, called the thematic vowel was affixed to the root before the final endings added.In the case of the thematic conjugations, some of the endings differed depending on whether this vowel was present or absent, but by and large the endings were the same for both types.
The athematic system is much older and exhibits ablaut within the paradigm. In the descendant languages, athematic verbs were often extended with a thematic vowel, likely because of the complications resulting from the consonant clusters formed when the mostly consonant-initial endings were added directly onto the mostly consonant-final stems.
Consequently, the athematic verbs became a non-productive relic class in the later Indo-European languages. In groups such as Germanic and Italic, the athematic verbs had almost gone entirely extinct by the time of written records, while Sanskrit and Ancient Greek preserve them more clearly.
Proposed endings
At least the following sets of endings existed:- Primary endings used for:
- * Present tense of the indicative mood of imperfective verbs.
- * Subjunctive mood
- Secondary endings used for:
- * Past tense of the indicative mood of imperfective verbs.
- * Indicative mood of perfective verbs.
- * Optative mood
- Stative endings used for
- * Indicative mood of stative verbs.
- Imperative endings used for
- * Imperative mood of all verbs.
The more central subfamilies of Indo-European have innovated by replacing the middle-voice -r with the -i of the active voice.
Traditional accounts say that the first-person singular primary ending is the only form where athematic verbs used a different ending from thematic verbs. Newer accounts by and are similar, with the proto-forms modernized using laryngeal notation.
Sihler, however, notes that many of the most archaic languages have third-person singular forms missing a t and proposes an alternative t-less thematic ending along with the standard ending. Greek and Balto-Slavic have t-less forms in thematic actives, whereas Vedic and Hittite have t-less athematic middle forms.
uses the t-less forms as the starting point for a radical rethinking of the thematic endings, based primarily on Greek and Lithuanian. These proposals are still controversial, however.
Active eventive endings
Middle eventive endings
Stative endings
A second conjugation has been proposed in Jay Jasanoff's h₂e-conjugation theory. Svensson suggests *-h₂éy for the second and third dual stative endings, on the basis of evidence from Indo-Iranian, Tocharian, and Gaulish.Verb aspects
The standard reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European verbal morphology outlines a system primarily defined by aspectual opposition rather than tense. However, in the most ancient attested Indo-European languages, this system had largely faded and a new emphasis on a past—non-past distinction had emerged. The most archaic known Indo-European language, Hittite, primarily distinguishes between past and non-past forms and bears no trace of any earlier aspectual opposition. There are other Indo-European languages that have largely simplified their verbal morphologies, though it is unusual for an exceptionally ancient Indo-European language such as Hittite to bear little trace of the presumed importance of aspect within PIE. According to the linguists Jesse Lundquist and Anthony Yates, the evidence from Hittite implies the existence of an earlier system primarily centered around lexical rather than grammatical aspect. Yates and Lundquist note the wide variety of verbal classes in Core Indo-European that appear to lack much semantic difference, implying a merger of earlier formations.Proto-Indo-European verbs belonged to one of three aspect classes:
- Stative verbs depicted a state of being.
- Eventive verbs expressed events. These could be further divided between:
- * Perfective verbs depicting actions viewed as punctual, an entire process without attention to internal details, completed as a whole or not completed at all. No distinction in tense was made.
- * Imperfective verbs depicting durative, ongoing or repeated action, with attention to internal details. This included the time of speaking; separate endings were used for present or future events in contrast to past events.
In traditional PIE terminology, the forms described here as stative, perfective and imperfective are known as the perfect, aorist and present systems:
- Stative = Perfect
- Perfective = Aorist
- Imperfective = Present
The following table shows the two systems of terminology.
| Process | Aspect | Aspect | Tense | Tense |
| Stative | Stative | Perfect | Perfect tense | |
| Eventive | Perfective, punctual | Aorist | Aorist tense | |
| Eventive | Imperfective, durative | Present | Present | Present tense |
| Eventive | Imperfective, durative | Present | Past or tenseless | Imperfect tense |
In Proto-Indo-European, the aspects had no tense meaning, which later developed in the descendant languages. In Ancient Greek, for example, the perfect carried the meaning of a state resulting from a past action, but the PIE stative referred to the state alone. Likewise, the aorist, though having a tense-like meaning in Ancient Greek, had none in PIE. Perfective and stative verbs were effectively tenseless, or indifferent to time.
Eventive verbs
The perfective and imperfective aspect classes are together known as eventive, or verbs that depict events, to distinguish them from stative. Both shared the same conjugation, with some small differences. The main difference was that imperfective verbs allowed the use of special present-tense endings, while perfective verbs only allowed the default tenseless endings.The present tense used the primary eventive endings, and was used specifically to refer to present events, although it could also refer to future events. The past tense referred to past events, and used the secondary eventive endings. Perfective verbs always used the secondary endings, but did not necessarily have a past-tense meaning. The secondary endings were, strictly speaking, tenseless, even in imperfective verbs. This meant that past endings could also be used with a present meaning, if it was obvious from context in some way. This use still occurred in Vedic Sanskrit, where in a sequence of verbs only the first might be marked for present tense, while the remainder was unmarked. If the verbs were subjunctive or optative, the mood markings might likewise be only present on the first verb, with the others not marked for mood.
In Ancient Greek, Armenian and Indo-Iranian, the secondary endings came to be accompanied by a prefixing particle known as the augment, reconstructed as *e- or *h₁e-. The function of the augment is unclear, but it was not a fixed part of the inflection as it was in the later languages. In Homeric Greek and Vedic Sanskrit, many imperfect and aorist verbs are still found lacking the augment; its use became mandatory only in later Greek and Sanskrit.
Morphologically, the indicative of perfective verbs was indistinguishable from the past indicative of imperfective verbs, and it is likely that in early stages of PIE, these were the same verb formation. At some point in the history of PIE, the present tense was created by developing the primary endings out of the secondary endings. Not all verbs came to be embellished with these new endings; for semantic reasons, some verbs never had a present tense. These verbs were the perfective verbs, while the ones that did receive a present tense were imperfective.
Stative verbs
The stative aspect differed from the eventives by being marked formally with its own personal endings, having a root in the singular in o-grade, but elsewhere in zero-grade, and typically by exhibiting reduplication. This class is traditionally known as perfect, a name which was assigned based upon the Latin tense before the stative nature of the PIE form was fully known. While Latin conflated the static aspect concept with tense, in PIE there was no association with any particular tense. Like the perfective verbs, stative verbs were tenseless and described a state without reference to time. This did not mean that stative verbs referred to permanent states, but rather that there was no way to express, within the verbal morphology, whether the state was applicable in the present moment, in the past, or in the future. These nuances were, presumably, expressed using adverbs.The Proto-Indo-European perfect shows reflexes in the majority of Indo-European branches, including particularly archaic Indo-European languages such as Ancient Greek. However, the Anatolian branch—the most ancient group of the Indo-European family—does not showcase any attestation of the PIE perfect, though it does contain a class of hi-verbs that displays a similar set of inflectional endings and is perhaps ultimately derived from the same source as the perfect. Nevertheless, the precise details of the relationship between the hi-conjugation class and the perfect remain unclear. According to the linguist Martin Joachim Kümmel, it is perhaps possible that the perfect was an innovation of the 'Core' Indo-European languages. There are certain lexical items in Hittite that may derive from original Proto-Indo-European stative verbs. For instance, the verb wikt:????? perhaps reflects a Proto-Indo-European stative *spe-spónd-e, which itself may be the source of Latin wikt:spepondi. Kloekhorst, however, doubts this word equation, arguing that—should šipānti have perfect origins, it would likely differ semantically from its counterpart wikt:?????, yet—according to Kloekhorst—no such difference in meaning exists.
The Hittite hi-verbs do not appear to showcase any semantic difference from the class of m-verbs—they merely function as another type of present verbal formation. Nevertheless, based on the other Indo-European languages, a type of stative verb that signified a current state of being rather than events can perhaps be reconstructed. The original present sense of the IE stative is seen in the Germanic preterite-present verbs such as Gothic wikt:????? "I know", with exact cognates in Sanskrit wikt:वेद and Ancient Greek wikt:oĩda. Certain lexical archaisms within Homeric Greek may also preserve stative semantics, such as the perfect form wikt:τέθνηκε or wikt:ἕστηκε. There are also several stative perfects in Latin, such as wikt:memini, wikt:odi, and wikt:novi. However, many Proto-Indo-European roots with a seemingly inherent stative meaning, such as wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₁es-, formed root presents instead of perfects.
In its most archaic function, the oldest form of the perfect may have expressed a fundamentally subject-oriented, intransitive meaning. For instance, the Ancient Greek perfect wikt:τέτοκα, which was primarily used of women, whereas the simplex wikt:τίκτω could apply to anyone. It is possible that the default function of the perfect was similar to the middle voice, and it is also possible that the perfect had no separate mediopassive paradigm alongside the set of active inflectional endings. There are no perfect passive inflectional endings in Latin and Gothic and, in Tocharian, the preterite participle—the only surviving remnant of the perfect—is used to express both active and passive meanings. The Indo-Iranian and Greek languages do have separate inflectional endings for the perfect mediopassive, though—according to Drinka—these are an innovated resulting from the grafting of the present middle endings onto the perfect. Consequently, the perfect may have acquired both an active and mediopassive inflection, perhaps allowing for the expression of both transitive and intransitive meanings, which itself possibly enabled the creation of entirely new transitive perfects to terms that previously lacked such forms. Sihler is however, more critical of the interpretation of the perfect as intransitive, arguing that archaic stative verbs such as *wóyde showcase transitive meanings.
There is a plethora of attested stative forms in Proto-Indo-European that appear to have designated a state resulting from the completion of a prior action. For instance, the stative form wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/memóne, which derives from the root wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/men-. According to the linguist Mate Kapović, it is possible that the resultative meaning emerged as a later development—perhaps within late PIE—succeeding an original more purely stative function. Kümmel suggests that the resultative meaning was applied to perfect verbs derived from telic roots. Thus, a root such as wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/leykʷ- may produce perfects forms such as Ancient Greek wikt:λέλοιπα and Sanskrit wikt:रिरेच, both meaning "is gone, has left." According to the Lexikon der Indogermanischen Verben, both of these formations are attributable to a Proto-Indo-European perfect verb of the shape wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/lelóykʷe. In the case of λέλοιπα, the original stative meaning may coexist alongside a newer resultative meaning: The form can mean both "to be missing" and "to have left behind.” Alternatively, Sihler argues that the ‘resultative’ view of the perfect is likely inaccurate, as—according to Sihler—resultative semantics are not present in several attested perfects and it is easy to wrangle any predicate to fit a supposedly resultative meaning.
Other verbal categories
Voice
Verbs originally had two voices: active and mediopassive. In some daughter languages this was supplemented with a passive voice; in others the mediopassive evolved to have a passive meaning for roots that were also used in the active voice, but retained its mediopassive character for so-called deponent roots.Mood
The moods of PIE included indicative, imperative, subjunctive, optative and perhaps injunctive.Indicative
The indicative mood was the default mood, and, alongside the imperative, the oldest. It was used for simple statements of fact.- Imperfective verbs. The indicative mood was the only mood to have distinctions in tense in imperfective verbs, all other moods were tenseless.
- *The present tense used the primary endings.
- *The past tense used the secondary endings.
- Perfective verbs
- *The indicative of perfective verbs used secondary endings.
- Stative verbs
- *They used their own, entirely different set of endings in the indicative mood.
Imperative
Subjunctive
The subjunctive mood was used to describe completely hypothetical events, along the lines of "suppose that I oversleep...". It was also sometimes used for future events for this reason.The subjunctive was formed by adding the thematic vowel to the stem, along with primary endings, with the stem in the e-grade. The subjunctive of athematic verbs was thus thematic, and morphologically indistinguishable from a thematic indicative. For verbs that were already thematic, a second thematic vowel was added after the first, creating a long thematic vowel.
Optative
The optative mood was used for wishes or hopes, like the English "may I sleep well". It was formed with an athematic ablauting suffix -yéh₁- ~ -ih₁- attached to the zero-grade of the stem.In Vedic Sanskrit, optatives were very rarely found for characterized stems ; most occurrences of the optative are in root verbs. This is taken by Sihler to indicate that the optative was not really a mood in PIE, but a separate verb, and was thus restricted to being derived directly from roots only, not from already-derived verbs. In addition, it appears that in PIE itself, stative verbs did not have the optative mood; it was limited to eventive verbs. Early Indo-Iranian texts mostly lack attestations of stative optative forms.
Injunctive
The place of the injunctive mood, of obscure function, is debated. It takes the form of the bare root in e-grade with secondary endings, without the prefixed augment that was common to forms with secondary endings in these languages. The injunctive was thus entirely without tense marking. This causes Fortson to suggest that the use of the injunctive was for gnomic expressions or in otherwise timeless statements.Verb formation
From any particular root, verbs could be derived in a variety of means.In the most conservative Indo-European languages, there is a separate set of conjugational classes for each of the tense/aspect categories, with no general relationship obtaining between the class of a given verb in one category relative to another. The oldest stages of these languages reveal clear remains of an even less organized system, where a given verb root might have multiple ways, or no way at all, of being conjugated in a given tense/aspect category — sometimes with meanings that differ in unpredictable ways.
This clearly suggests that the tense/aspect categories originated as separate lexical verbs, part of a system of derivational morphology, and only gradually became integrated into a coherent system of inflectional morphology, which was still incomplete at the time of the proto-language.
There were a variety of means by which new verbs could be derived from existing verbal roots, as well as from fully formed nominals. Most of these involved adding a suffix to the root, but there were a few more peculiar formations. One formation that was relatively productive for forming imperfective verbs, but especially stative verbs, was reduplication, in which the initial consonants of the root were duplicated. Very few roots in Proto-Indo-European can be reconstructed that display a sequence of two identical consonants surrounding a vowel, though there are several exceptions, such as wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ses-. Regardless, given the rarity of such roots, it is possible that any sequence of two identical consonants flanking a central vowel would have immediately been recognized as a reduplicated form, possibly explaining the widespread use of reduplication as a morphological marker in Proto-Indo-European. Another notable way of forming imperfective verbs was the nasal infix, which was inserted within the root itself rather than affixed to it.
Root verbs
The most basic verb formation was derived directly from the root, with no suffix, and expressed the meaning of the root itself. Such "root verbs" could be either athematic or thematic; it was not predictable which type was used. The aspect of a root verb was determined by the root itself, which had its own "root aspect" inherent in the basic meaning of the root. Thus, there were verbal roots whose default meaning was durative, ongoing, or iterative, and verbs derived from them were generally imperfective in aspect. Roots whose meaning was punctiliar or discrete created perfective-aspect verbs. Stative roots were rare; perhaps the only reconstructible stative root verb was wóyd- "know".There are numerous unexplained surprises in this system, however. The common root h₁es- meant "to be", which is an archetypically stative notion. Yet, aspect-wise, it was an imperfective root, and thus formed an imperfective root verb h₁és-ti, rather than a stative verb.
Primary derivations
In early PIE, the aspect system was less well-developed, and root verbs were simply used in their root aspects, with various derivational formations available for expressing more specific nuances. By late PIE, however, as the aspect system evolved, the need had arisen for verbs of a different aspect than that of the root. Several of the formations, which originally formed distinct verbs, gradually came to be used as "aspect switching" derivations, whose primary purpose was to create a verb of one aspect from a root of another aspect.This led to a fundamental distinction in PIE verb formations, between primary and secondary formations. Primary formations included the root verbs and the derivational formations that came to be used as aspect switching devices, while secondary formations remained strictly derivational and retained significant semantic value. For example, the secondary suffix -éye- derived causative verbs, and retained this purpose and meaning throughout the descendants of PIE. The common primary suffix -ye-, however, came to be used for the majority of verb formations in Latin, without any discernible meaning being conveyed by the suffix; its function had become purely morphological.
A verb needed no derivational or aspect-switching markers for its own root aspect. Affixes of various types were used to switch the inherent aspect to a different type. Such affixes created "characterized" verb formations, contrasting with the basic "root" or "uncharacterized" formation. Examples of aspect switching affixes include -yé-, -sḱé-, and the nasal infix, all of which were used to derive imperfective verbs from roots whose inherent aspect was not already imperfective. Conversely, the "s-aorist" formation used the suffix -s- to create perfective verbs. Many roots were "hyper-characterized", however, with an aspect marker added to a root that already had the correct aspect. This may have been done in order to emphasize the aspect. For example, the s-aorist also seemed to have been used when the verb root was inherently perfective already.
A root did not necessarily have verbs to express all three aspects. There were many roots that seem to have had verbs for only one or two aspects in PIE. For example, the root h₁es- "to be" seems to have formed only an imperfective verb, no perfective or stative verbs derived from this root can be reconstructed. Various later languages amended this situation differently as needed, often by using entirely different roots. Latin used the root bʰuH- "to become" to fill in as the perfective aspect of h₁es-, while the Germanic languages used the root h₂wes- "to live, to reside" in that role.
While several aspect switchers were available to be added to the root, particular markers were not exclusively assigned to any root. Certain roots did show a preference for the same markers in multiple daughter languages, but the use of a particular marker was not exclusive, and a variety of formations are often found for the same root. For example, the basic root for "stand", *steh₂-, was a perfective root. Therefore, the root verb had the punctual sense of "come to a standing position; to rise from a sitting position". In order to speak about "standing" in a present, durative sense, the root verb required a derivational marker to put it into the imperfective aspect. For this root, the imperfective aspect switcher was often reduplication, but the Germanic languages also show a nasal infix or suffix for this root, at least by a later period. The Slavic languages, meanwhile, also have a form derived with the -yé- suffix. Such discrepancies suggest that in PIE proper, this root had no imperfective verb at all, and the aspect-switched verbs we see in the later descendants were formed independently of each other.
Many primary formations retained some "residue" of their original derivational function and meaning, and significant relics of this earlier derivational system can be reconstructed for PIE. The perfective root gʷem- "to step" is reconstructible with two different imperfective derivations: gʷm̥-sḱé- and gʷm̥-yé-. Both formations survived side by side in Greek, suggesting that they did not overlap significantly enough in meaning throughout their history for one or the other to fall out of use.
Secondary derivations
Secondary verbs were formed either from primary verb roots or from nouns or adjectives. Deverbal formations included causative, iterative/inceptive, desiderative.The formation of secondary verbs remained part of the derivational system and did not necessarily have completely predictable meanings.
They are distinguished from the primary formations by the fact that they generally are part of the derivational rather than inflectional morphology system in the daughter languages. However, as mentioned above, this distinction was only beginning to develop in PIE. Not surprisingly, some of these formations have become part of the inflectional system in particular daughter languages. Probably the most common example is the future tense, which exists in many daughter languages but in forms that are not cognate, and tend to reflect either the PIE subjunctive or a PIE desiderative formation.
Secondary verbs were always imperfective, and had no corresponding perfective or stative verbs, nor was it possible to derive such verbs from them. This was a basic constraint in the verbal system that prohibited applying a derived form to an already-derived form. Evidence from the Rig Veda indicates that secondary verbs in PIE were not conjugated in the subjunctive or optative moods. This suggests that these moods follow the same constraint, and are derivational in origin. The later Indo-European languages worked around these limitations, but each in their own way.
Formation types
The following gives a list of the most common verb types reconstructed for PIE.Primary imperfective
Root athematic
Also called "simple athematic", this formation derived imperfective verbs directly from a root. It can be divided into two subtypes:- Normal type: *-ti ~ *-énti. Alternating between accented e-grade root, and zero-grade root with accent on the endings.
- Narten type: *-ti ~ *-nti. Mostly root accent and alternating lengthened/normal grade, or, according to an alternative view, fixed normal grade throughout.
Examples: *h₁ésti.
Root thematic
This class functioned the same as the root athematic verbs. There were also two types:- simple thematic type: *-eti ~ *-onti. Accented e-grade root.
- "tudati" type: *-éti ~ *-ónti. Zero-grade root, accent on theme vowel.
Examples: *bʰéreti.
Reduplicated athematic
The root is prefixed with a copy of the initial consonant of the root, separated by a vowel. The accent is fixed on this prefix, but the root grade alternates as in root athematic verbs. The vowel can be either e or i:- e-reduplication: *--ti ~ *--nti
- i-reduplication: *--ti ~ *--nti
Reduplicated thematic
*--eti ~ *--onti. Like the athematic equivalent, but the vowel is always i and the root is always in zero-grade.Examples: *sísdeti.
Nasal infix
. This peculiar formation consists of an infix -né- ~ -n- that is inserted before final consonant of the zero-grade root, and inflected with athematic inflection. The infix itself ablauts like root athematic verbs. This formation is limited to roots ending in a stop or laryngeal, and containing a non-initial sonorant. This sonorant is always syllabified in the zero-grade, the infix is never syllabic.Examples: *linékʷti, *tl̥néh₂ti.
''nw''-suffix
. Formed with an ablauting athematic suffix *-néw- ~ *-nw- attached to the root. These are sometimes considered to be a special case of the nasal-infix type.Examples: *tn̥néwti.
''ye''-suffix
This thematic formation exists in two types:- *(é)-y-eti ~ *(é)-y-onti. Accented root in e-grade. This type was primarily used to form transitive imperfective verbs from intransitive perfective verbs.
- *(∅)-y-éti ~ *(∅)-y-ónti. Zero-grade root with accent on the thematic vowel. This type formed mostly intransitive imperfective verbs, often deponent.
''sḱé''-suffix
. Thematic, with zero-grade root and accent on the suffix. Despite the usual zero-grade vocalism of sḱé-presents, Sihler reconstructs at least one possible full-grade form: ǵneh₃sḱéti, which is possibly the source of Latin wikt:nosco and Ancient Greek wikt:γιγνώσκω. However, the existence of the full-grade in this term is not universally accepted, with linguists such as Michiel de Vaan opting to reconstruct wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ǵn̥h₃sḱéti. Tocharian B wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/péh₂sti and Latin wikt:pasco perhaps also reflect a full-grade term of the shape wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/péh₂sti, though de Vaan likewise suggests possible zero-grade pre-form for the Latin term.Structurally, Jasanoff has proposed that the sḱé-suffix consisted of a morpheme -s- and a thematic suffix -ḱe. According to Jasanoff, the first component is perhaps connected to the desiderative suffix -se-, in which case the suffix was itself was once possibly of the shape -sḱ-. However, this proposal would require the deletion of the laryngeal following both sonorants and obstruents, whereas the thematic desiderative present appears to have only dropped the laryngeal prior to the latter consonant type. To remedy this issue, Jasanoff suggests that that the laryngeal was omitted due to a special sound law concerning clusters of the shape -h₁sḱ-. or the analogy of obstruent-final roots. Similarly, the linguist Norbert Oettinger has suggested that this suffix may comprise the elements -s- and wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ḱe.
The original meaning of the suffix has been partially obscured by the multivarious functions it acquired in the daughter languages: The Latin suffix wikt:-sco forms inchoative-intransitive verbs, whereas the Tocharian reflexes form causatives. The exact function of the suffix in Classical Greek is unclear, though—in Homeric and Ionic Greek—the suffix appears to have remained productively capable of forming terms that described habitual activities, such as the formwikt:δόσκον, which belonged to the verb wikt:δίδωμι. This suffix could create new imperfect or aorist tenses for verbs that otherwise lacked the sḱé-morpheme, such as the imperfect form wikt:φεύγεσκον. Similarly, in Classical Armenian, the aorist—which largely continued the PIE imperfect—can contain a wikt:-ց- extension, which may also derive from the sḱé-suffix.
The related Avestan suffix -sa- appears to have formed a past tense with a habitual meaning, though there is no semantic difference in the present tense. Otherwise, amongst the Iranian languages, the suffix remained productive as an inchoative formation. For instance, the suffix appears in the inchoative Ossetian verb tæfs- and the Khwarezmian verb wikt:????. In Indo-Aryan, however, the Vedic Sanskrit verbs marked by the suffix wikt: -च्छति, such as wikt:गच्छति, appear to showcase no identifiable semantic difference from other terms. In Hittite, the suffix -ške/a- remained productive, and—according to Sihler—it usually formed iterative verbs, though it could also seemingly produce terms with durative meanings. Alternatively, Kloekhorst argues that the Hittite suffix could communicate a wide array of imperfective meanings, be they iterative, distributive, durative, ingressive, and progressive. Despite the wide array of distinct meanings found throughout the Indo-European languages, Sihler suggests that it is possible the unify these disparate forms under a single originally iterative-durative suffix, as he argues that it is generally common for iteratives to evolve to denote past habitual action.
The term γιγνώσκω perhaps represents a particular type of reduplicated sḱé-present, which is perhaps continued in other words such as wikt:βιβρώσκω or wikt:διδάσκω. According to Sihler, these forms—in Ancient Greek—are often marked by their transitivity. There is perhaps evidence of a similar formation in Latin, with the term wikt:disco possibly deriving from wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/deḱ-. In Hittite, there is likewise a connection between initial reduplicated and sḱé-presents, as demonstrated by forms such as paripriške/a, which may reflect wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/preh₁-. The Latin suffix wikt:-esco, which forms ingressive verbs, perhaps reflects an additional Proto-Indo-European formation wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/-éh₁sḱeti, which is perhaps otherwise continued by the Old Armenian verbal ending -wikt:-չ--. Hittite possess a similar fientive suffix -ēšš-, though—according to Kloekhorst—this morpheme must instead be derived from -éh₁-sh₁-, which perhaps to parallels the relation between -šš- and -sḱéti.
Examples: wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/gʷm̥sḱéti, wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/pr̥sḱéti.
''se''-suffix
. Thematic, with accented e-grade root. There are a scant number of terms in the Indo-European languages that attest to this formation, though Fortson cites examples such as wikt:ἀέξω. Kölligan and Jasanoff, however, explain this form as derived from an original sigmatic desiderative. There is evidence of a class of athematic s-presents in Hittite that showcases CéC-ti ~ CØC-énti ablaut, as reflected in terms such as kane/išš-zi, which—according to Kloekhorst—derives from ǵnéh₃-s-ti ~ *ǵnh₃-s-énti. According to de Vaan, it is perhaps possible that the Latin term wikt:ignoro is an s-present that may continue the same pre-form as the Hittite word.Examples: *h₂lékseti.
Secondary imperfective
''eh₁''-stative
. This formed secondary stative verbs. In daughter languages, this suffix is varyingly utilized to form new terms from both verbal and adjectival roots. For instance, the Hittite verb maršē-zi is perhaps derived from the adjective marš-a-, and the Latin stative wikt:albo coexists with the adjective wikt:albus. Moreover, these verbs were often associated with roots that also formed Caland-system adjectives. For example, the root wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₁rewdʰ- formed a Caland-adjective wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/*h₁rudʰrós and a stative verb wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₁rudʰéh₁ti. Despite their stative meaning, these verbs were, nonetheless, imperfective. This suffix was thematicised in most descendants with a -ye- extension, thus -éh₁ye- as attested in most daughter languages. It is unclear if the verb ablauted; most indications are that it did not, but there are some hints that the zero-grade did occur in a few places. Some scholars, including the editors of the Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben, believe that the eh₁-stem was originally an aorist stem with 'fientive' meaning, whereas the -ye- extension created the present with 'essive' meaning, 'to be x'.Examples: *h₁rudʰéh₁ti.
''éye''-causative/iterative
''(h₁)se''-desiderative
This thematic suffix formed desiderative verbs, meaning "to want to do". Two formations are attested:- *(é)-(h₁)s-eti ~ *(é)-(h₁)s-onti. Accented full grade of the root.
- *--s-eti ~ *--s-onti. Reduplicated with i, accent on the reduplicated prefix, zero-grade root.
In Sanskrit, there exists a particular type of thematic desiderative class formed via í-reduplication and a sa-suffix. For instance, consider the desiderative term wikt:निनीषति, which belongs to the root wikt:नी. However, roots marked by the vowel -u- typically formed desideratives utilizing u-reduplication, such as the term wikt:जुघुक्षति, which belongs to the root wikt: गुह्. Whereas the Sanskrit reduplicated desiderative was typically marked by a weak root vowel, certain roots with a final resonant produced lengthened grade desideratives. Puhvel suggests that these formations regularly reflect a Proto-Indo-European sequence of the shape -RHs-, in which the resonant and the consonant -s- were separated an intervening laryngeal. For instance, the Sanskrit desiderative wikt:चिकीर्षति can be construed as the expected outcome of Proto-Indo-European kʷí-kʷr̥-s-eti. Regardless, this specific type of desiderative may have existed at the Proto-Indo-European level, as it also possibly the source of certain Old Irish and Ancient Greek reduplicated futures. In Ancient Greek, there exist terms such as Homeric "wikt:δεδέξομαι", a future form of wikt:δέχομαι. Such reduplicated futures also appear in Attic Greek—Aristophanes, a 5th-century BCE Athenian playwright, utilizes the reduplicated future form "wikt:κεκλαύσεται". In Old Irish, numerous verbs showcase s-futures with reduplication, such as wikt:guidid—the future form of which was wikt:gigsea. However, the linguist Frederik Kortlandt argues that the endings of the Old Irish reduplicated s-future are indicative an originally athematic paradigm, in contrast to the thematic nature of the Sanskrit reduplicated desiderative.
Examples: *wéydseti, *ḱíḱl̥h₁seti.
''sye''-desiderative
. Similar to above, but with an accented thematic vowel and zero-grade root. This verbal formation is reflected in the Sanskrit future-forming suffix wikt:-स्यति and possibly also the Lithuanian future paradigm. Given the restriction to one specific area of the Indo-European world, it may have been a dialectal regionalism within the proto-language.Examples: *bʰuHsyéti.
''ye''-denominative
. Affixed to noun and adjective stems for a variety of meanings; accent is on the thematic vowel. The thematic vowel of the nominal stem, if any, is retained as e, as is any possible -eh₂ suffix, thus creating the variants -eyé- and -eh₂yé-, which developed into independent suffixes in many daughter languages.Examples: wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₁regʷesyéti
''h₂''-factitive
. This formed transitive factitive verbs from thematic adjective stems. As above, the thematic vowel was retained, as e. For instance, the adjective wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/néwos may have produced a factitive form of the shape wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/néweh₂ti, though Beekes expresses doubt regarding the antiquity of this form, arguing that the adduced forms may constitute parallel innovations. Regardless, this type of verbal formation remained productive in Hittite, where it was continued as the suffix -aḫḫ-. However, in various other daughter languages, it was replaced by or conflated with the denominative suffix -eh₂yé-.Examples: wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/néweh₂ti.
''ye''-factitive
. Very similar to the denominative, but formed from adjectives only. The thematic vowel is retained, but this time as o. The existence of this type in PIE is uncertain.Perfective
Root athematic
*-t ~ *-ént. The same as root athematic imperfective verbs. Most perfective verbs appear to have been of this type.Examples: *gʷémt, *léykʷt, *bʰúHt.
Root thematic
*-ét ~ *-ónt. The same as root thematic imperfective verbs. This formation was very rare in PIE, barely any are reconstructable, but became more widespread in the later languages. The formation seemed to have zero-grade of the root and accent on the thematic vowel, like the "tudati" type.Examples: *h₁ludʰét.
Reduplicated thematic
*--et ~ *--ont.In Ancient Greek, there several verbs that demonstrate a rare type of reduplicated zero-grade aorist. The reduplicated aorist may have remained productive up until the Proto-Greek period, as forms such as wikt:λέλαθον derive from roots that potentially emerged later in the development of the Proto-Indo-European language, such as wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/leh₂-. Regardless, these terms were already rare by the time of Homer, and they had almost completely disappeared from non-poetic contexts by the Classical period. In Ancient Greek literature, it was common to replace reduplicated aorists with sigmatic forms. For instance, the reduplicated aorist wikt:πέπιθον was replaced by wikt:ἔπεισα and the reduplicated aorist form wikt:πέφραδον was replaced by wikt:ἔφρασα. Willi proposes that the few reduplicated aorists that survived into Classical antiquity—such as wikt:εὗρον —were likely preserved partially because phonological shifts had rendered them synchronically unidentifiable as reduplicated formations. Though, according to Willi, certain reduplicated aorists—such as Homeric wikt:κεκύθωσι —may constitute later formations created for poetic purposes. Etymologically, these forms may connect to the Indo-Iranian reduplicated aorist. For instance, terms such as Avestan nąsat̰ and Sanskrit wikt:अवोचत् may serve as direct cognates to Ancient Greek wikt:ἤνεγκα and wikt:εἶπον respectively. Additionally, Old Armenian arar-, the aorist stem of wikt:առնեմ, may directly parallel the Ancient Greek reduplicated aorist form wikt:ἄραρον, which may trace back to Proto-Indo-European h₂e-h₂r-e/o-, itself formed from the root wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₂er-. Further comparanda may be identified in the Tocharian class II preterite, which—in Tocharian A—is reserved for causative verbs. This causative meaning may semantically align with the similar causative restriction of the Sanskrit forms and the typically factitive function of the Ancient Greek reduplicated aorist. Though, the prehistory of this class in Tocharian A is not uncontroversial and the connection with the reduplicated aorist is heavily disputed.
In Sanskrit, reduplicated aorists remained only productively capable of forming new terms from causatives, such as the aorist term wikt:अबूबुधत्, which derives from the causative wikt:बोधयति. However, the reduplication vowel for this type of aorist was usually or, whereas in Ancient Greek it is always, thereby complicating an etymological relationship. According to the philologist Andreas Willi, the Indo-Iranian forms may have merely analogically remodeled themselves according to the i-reduplicated present stems, such as wikt:????????? . Such a development may have been partially spurred by the semantics of this class, which typically possessed factitive—and therefore highly-transitive—meanings. Morphologically, present-stem reduplication in Proto-Indo-European was also associated with transitivity, perhaps aiding in the conflation of the two classes. According to the linguist Ondřej Šefčík, it is possible that the causative aorist of Sanskrit is an Indo-Aryan innovation, as this class does not appear to have existed in Indo-Iranian.
Besides the productive class of Sanskrit causative aorists, other Indo-Iranian aorists appear to have more accurately preserved the original type of Proto-Indo-European formation. The archaic reduplicated aorists in Vedic Sanskrit often display thematic endings, perhaps hinting at an originally thematic paradigm. For instance, Avestan -jaγnəṇte and Ancient Greek wikt:ἔπεφνον may both reflect a thematic form gʷʰé-gʷʰn-e-t, which derives from the root wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/gʷʰen-. In Ancient Greek, thematic and athematic reduplicated aorists often coexist with each other: Homer, for instance, utilizes the thematic first-person singular form wikt:ἔειπον and the athematic second-person singular form wikt:ἔειπας. Likewise, the thematic first-person singular form wikt:ἤνεγκον and the third-person singular imperative form wikt:ἔνεικε exist alongside the athematic second-person singular form wikt:ἤνεγκας in Greek literature. Willi argues that the attested thematic forms generally occupy parts of the paradigm that are resistant to change, and therefore it is more likely that the thematic forms reflect the original situation in Proto-Indo-European. Moreover, according to Willi, the athematic forms generally appear in words such as wikt:ἤνεικα, which had been rendered synchronically unanalyzable as reduplicated formations and therefore may have been remodeled after the more standard athematic aorists.
Certain archaic Sanskrit reduplicated aorists display athematic flexion, such as susrot or ájagan, which may derive from earlier se-srew-t or gʷe-gʷem-t respectively, themselves from the roots wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/srew- and wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/gʷem-. The athematic character of these forms may imply the existence of an inherited class of athematic reduplicated aorists. Alternatively, Willi suggests that these terms may have been reshaped analogically according to the Vedic pluperfect, which—like the aorist—displays secondary endings and expresses anterior meanings. Such similarities may have also allowed for new aoristic formations to arise on the model of the pluperfect, such as the aorist form wikt:अपप्तत्, which may have been fashioned after the pluperfect form ápaptuḥ. Other Sanskrit causative reduplicated aorists show athematic endings, such as ájīgar, which may derive from earlier gi-h₁ger-t. These forms may have secondarily acquired athematic character under the influence of the reduplicated i-presents, which were themselves athematic.
Regarding the semantics of this class, Willi argues that—in Ancient Greek—reduplicated aorists exclusively possess transitive meanings. In certain cases, the transitivity was already inherent to the basic root of the verb. For instance, the reduplicated aorist form πέφαται may derive from a Proto-Indo-European reduplicated aorist gʷʰe-gʷʰn-e/o-, itself from the root gʷʰen-, which possessed the transitive meaning "to kill." However, the verb wikt:ἀραρίσκω, which normally holds an intransitive meaning "to fit," displays a reduplicated aorist wikt:ἄραρον, which showcases a transitive-factitive meaning of "to adapt, make fit." Willi suggests that this transitive-factitive value extends to the mediopassive forms of reduplicated aorists. In particular, Willi cites the form wikt:πεπυθέσθαι, which may derive from Proto-Indo-European bʰe-bʰudʰ-e/o-, itself from the root wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/bʰewdʰ-, whence also wikt:πυνθάνομαι. According to Willi, the mediopassive of the reduplicated aorist likely meant "to make oneself aware," hence to "to learn."
However, Ancient Greek terms such as wikt:εὗρον or wikt:ἄραρον —which are among the few reduplicated aorists have strong candidates for other Indo-European cognates—generally, according to Willi, are also among the least associated with factitivity. Thus, Willi argues that the confinement to the factitive domain was a later development not necessarily present in the earliest stages of the Proto-Indo-European language. The factitive meaning may have evolved from a more generally perfective significance, which—following the loss of the productivity of the reduplicated aorist—was then usurped by other aoristic formations. Such a development may obey the fourth law of analogy outlined by the linguist Jerzy Kuryłowicz, which decrees that an older formation—when replaced by a newer one—is typically relegated to a more minor role, whereas the newer formation assumes the original, more basic function.
The factitive meaning of the reduplicated aorist overlaps with the semantics of the sigmatic aorist, which could also express factitivity. Thus, Willi suggests that the reduplicated aorist is likely the more ancient formation, as—should it have arisen after the s-aorist—it would have fulfilled no special role not already performed by a far-productive paradigm. However, the linguist Daniel Kölligan argues that other languages feature multiple causative forms with similar semantic properties. In particular, Kölligan cites the German language, which contains distinct causative verbs such as wikt:setzen and also expresses factitivity through periphrastic constructions with verbs such as wikt:machen. According to Kölligan, the scarce attestation of the reduplicated aorist type, especially outside of Greek and Indo-Iranian, indicates that this aoristic class was a later development. In contrast, Willi interprets the paucity of the material as further evidence for the antiquity of the formation. Willi suggests that examples of reduplicated aorists are rare precisely because the majority were replaced by later innovations. Within this hypothesis, the few surviving examples—such as wikt:εἶπον —were likely common terms that had become deeply embedded in typical speech, thereby allowing for their continuance even after their broader morphological class had become outdated. Though, Kölligan proposes that these few persistent forms may also reflect the early stages of a newly productive type, rather than the fragments of an extremely archaic class.
Examples: *wéwket.
''s''-suffix
. Inflected as the "Narten" athematic type, with lengthened grade in the singular and fixed accent. This suffix was the primary means of deriving perfective verbs from imperfective roots, though it appears that there were not many verbs created that way. The suffix became very productive in many of the descendants.Examples: *dḗyḱst, *wḗǵʰst.
Stative
Root
*-e ~ *-ḗr.The only reconstructable Proto-Indo-European root perfect is wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/wóyde. It is perhaps possible that the verb wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/wóyde had emerged from the loss of reduplication, in which the original reduplicated paradigm may be preserved by Sanskrit wikt:विद्वांस्, Ancient Greek wikt:εἰδώς, and Gothic wikt:????????—all of which are perfect participles. However, Sihler argues that it is more likely that these participles were created innovatively according to the more regular model of reduplicated perfects found throughout these languages. Moreover, there is—In Hittite—a class of hi-verbs that showcases similar ablaut gradation and endings to that of the unduplicated stative, perhaps indicating that this formation was of great antiquity within PIE. Still, it is quite possible that the Hittite hi-class of verbs is not the direct continuation of the root perfect type, as many hi-verbs do not showcase perfect semantics. There are several Hittite hi-verbs that do display stative meanings: wikt:???? and wikt:????. However, there is also a great multitude of hi-verbs that can describe the same non-stative functions as those covered by the mi-conjugation.
Examples: wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/wóyde.
Reduplicated
*--e ~ *--ḗr.Whereas the ablaut alternation of an o-grade singular and a zero-grade plural is unique and likely archaic, the connection between o-grade vocalism and reduplication is perhaps not equally as ancient. Reduplication as a morphological marker for the perfect is most prevalent in Greek, Phrygian, Indo-Iranian, and the participles of Tocharian. There is more limited, yet still considerable, evidence for reduplicated perfects in the Italic, Celtic, and Germanic branches. However, there is scant evidence for reduplicated perfects in Armenian, Albanian, Balto-Slavic, and Hittite. Based on the supposed paucity of reduplicated forms in these branches, Drinka suggests that the reduplicated perfect was likely not particularly productive, though still present, in the earliest forms of Proto-Indo-European. According to this model, the almost exclusive usage of reduplication as the marker of the perfect tense was perhaps a development restricted to Indo-Iranian and Greek. In contrast, Jasanoff notes the existence of a reduplicated Hittite form wewakk-, which may derive from a reduplicated stative we-wóḱ-e, perhaps whence also Sanskrit wikt:ववक्षि. If this word equation is accepted, it would imply the existence of the reduplicated stative class in archaic Proto-Indo-European. Kloekhorst, however, considers the connection between wewakk- and the Proto-Indo-European perfect to lack "merit," as the Hittite verb is semantically iterative-intensive, not stative. According to Kloekhorst, the term is better classified as an innovative formation aligned with the productive class of reduplicated iterative-intensive verbs in Hittite.
Examples: wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/bʰebʰówdʰe, wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/gʷegʷóme.
Examples
The following is an example paradigm, based on, of the verb leykʷ-, "leave behind". Two sets of endings are provided for the primary medio-passive forms — the central dialects use forms ending in y, while the peripheral dialects use forms ending in r, which are generally considered the original forms.Ringe makes certain assumptions about synchronic PIE phonology that are not universally accepted:
- Sievers' Law applies in all positions and to all resonants, including proto=no.
- Word-final t becomes d when adjacent to a voiced segment.
The above assumptions about PIE phonology apply, in addition to a rule that deletes laryngeals which occur in the sequence -oRHC or -oRH#, where R stands for any resonant, H any laryngeal, C any consonant and # the end of a word. The most important effect of this rule is to delete most occurrences of h₁ in the thematic optative.
Post-PIE developments
The various verb formations came to be reorganised in the daughter languages. The tendency was for various forms to become integrated into a single "paradigm" which combined verbs of different aspects into a coherent whole. This process proceeded in steps:- Combining different forms with similar meanings into a system of three major aspects. The result of this was the so-called "Cowgill–Rix" system described above, which was completed in late PIE, shortly after Tocharian had split off and well after the Anatolian split. At this stage, formations that originally had various purposes had their semantics largely harmonized into one of the aspect classes, with a clear distinction between primary and secondary derivations. These formations, however, were still separate lexical verbs, still sometimes with idiosyncratic meanings, and for a given aspect a root could still form multiple verbs or no verbs in that particular aspect. This is the stage visible in early Vedic Sanskrit.
- Combining the various aspects under a single unified verb, with a clear distinction between inflectional and derivational forms. This involved pruning multiple verbs formed from the same root with the same aspect, and creating new verbs for aspects that were missing for certain roots. At this stage a single verb was defined by a set of principal parts, each of which defined the type of formation used in each of its aspects. This stage was in process in Vedic Sanskrit and was largely completed in Ancient Greek, although even in this language there are still verbs lacking some of the aspects, as well as occasional multiple formations for the same aspect, with distinct and idiosyncratic meanings. Many remnants of this stage are also found in Old Church Slavonic, which still had distinct stems for the present, aorist and infinitive/participle. Most Slavic languages later lost the aorist, but verbs still have distinct present and infinitive stems up to the present day.
- Regularizing the formations into "conjugations" that applied across the whole system, so that a verb belonged to a single conjugational class rather than one class for each aspect formation. This stage was partly complete in Latin, in particular in regards to the -āre, -ēre, -īre conjugations. The older system, however, is still clearly visible in the -ere class, with each verb in this class, and some in the other classes, needing to be defined by separate present, perfect and supine formations.
In Proto-Germanic, this process seemed to have been largely completed, with only a few relic formations such as j-presents and n-infix presents remaining as "irregular" verbs. However, a clear distinction was still maintained between primary and secondary verbs, since the lack of multiple aspect stems in the latter eventually led to the creation of the weak verbs, with most of the original primary verbs becoming strong verbs. A small minority of statives retained their perfect/stative inflection, becoming the preterite-present verbs. - Gradual reduction in the number of conjugational classes, as well as the number of productive classes. This development is very clearly attested in the later Germanic languages. Afrikaans is an extreme example, where almost all verbs follow the same conjugational pattern. English is also a strong example, where all weak verb classes have merged, many older strong verbs have become weak, and all other verbs are considered irregular relic formations. Dutch and German also show this development, but the non-productive strong verb classes have remained more regular. Swedish still retains two weak verb classes, although only one is productive.
In the Romance languages, these developments have also occurred, but to a lesser degree. The classes -āre ''-ēre -ere -īre remain productive; the fourth though is generally only marginally productive.
In Greek, the difference between the present, aorist, and perfect, when used outside of the indicative is almost entirely one of grammatical aspect, not of tense. That is, the aorist refers to a simple action, the present to an ongoing action, and the perfect to a state resulting from a previous action. An aorist infinitive or imperative, for example, does not refer to a past action, and in fact for many verbs would likely be more common than a present infinitive or imperative. It is assumed that this distinction of aspect was the original significance of the PIE tenses, rather than any actual tense'' distinction, and that tense distinctions were originally indicated by means of adverbs, as in Chinese. It appears that by late PIE, the different tenses had already acquired a tensal meaning in particular contexts, as in Greek. In later Indo-European languages, this became dominant.
The meanings of the three tenses in the oldest Vedic Sanskrit differs somewhat from their meanings in Greek, and thus it is not clear whether the PIE meanings corresponded exactly to the Greek meanings. In particular, the Vedic imperfect had a meaning that was close to the Greek aorist, and the Vedic aorist had a meaning that was close to the Greek perfect. Meanwhile, the Vedic perfect was often indistinguishable from a present tense. In moods other than the indicative, the present, aorist, and perfect were almost indistinguishable from each other.
The lack of semantic distinction between different grammatical forms in a literary language often indicates that some of these forms no longer existed in the spoken language of the time. In fact, in Classical Sanskrit, the subjunctive dropped out, as did all tenses of the optative and imperative other than the present; meanwhile, in the indicative the imperfect, aorist and perfect became largely interchangeable, and in later Classical Sanskrit, all three could be freely replaced by a participial construction. All of these developments appear to reflect changes in spoken Middle Indo-Aryan; among the past tenses, for example, only the aorist survived into early Middle Indo-Aryan, which was later displaced by a participial past tense.
Developments of the various verb classes
NOTE: A blank space means the reflex of the given class in the given language is undetermined.Germanic
In Germanic, all eventive verbs acquired primary indicative endings, regardless of the original aspectual distinction. These became the "present tense" of Germanic. Almost all presents were converted to the thematic inflection, using the singular stem as the basis. A few "tudati"-type athematic verbs survived, but these were usually regularised by the daughter languages. Of the athematic verbs, only three verbs are reconstructable:- *wesaną "to be",
- *beuną "to be, to become"
- *dōną "to do, to put".
Stative verbs became the "past tense" or "preterite tense" in Germanic, and new statives were generally formed to accompany the primary eventives, forming a single paradigm. A dozen or so primary statives survived, in the form of the "preterite-present verbs". These retained their stative inflection, but did not have a past-tense meaning. The past tense of the eventive verbs was entirely lost, having become redundant in function to the old statives. Only one single eventive past survives, namely of *dōną: *dedǭ, *dedē, from the past reduplicated imperfective *dʰédʰeh₁m̥, *dʰédʰeh₁t.
Secondary eventives did not have any corresponding stative in PIE and did not acquire one in Germanic. Instead, an entirely novel formation, the so-called "dental past", was formed to them. Thus, a clear distinction arose between "strong verbs" or primary verbs, which had a past tense originating from the statives, and "weak verbs" or secondary verbs, whose past tense used the new dental suffix. The original primary statives also used the dental suffix, and a few primary ye-suffix presents also came to use the weak past rather than the strong past, such as *wurkijaną "to work" ~ *wurhtē and *þunkijaną "to think, to consider" ~ *þunhtē. However, these verbs, having no secondary derivational suffix, attached the dental suffix directly to the root with no intervening vowel, causing irregular changes through the Germanic spirant law. Ending-wise, the strong and weak pasts converged on each other; the weak past used descendants of the secondary eventive endings, while the strong past preserved the stative endings only in the singular, and used secondary eventive endings in the dual and plural.
Balto-Slavic
The stative aspect was reduced to relics already in the Balto-Slavic, with very little of it reconstructable. The aorist and indicative past tense merged, creating the Slavic aorist. Baltic lost the aorist, while it survived in Proto-Slavic.Modern Slavic languages have since mostly lost the aorist, but it survives in Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian and Sorbian. Slavic innovated a new imperfect tense, which appeared in Old Church Slavonic and still exists in the same languages as the aorist. A new past tense was also created in the modern languages to replace or complement the aorist and imperfect, using a periphrastic combination of the copula and the so-called "l-participle", originally a deverbal adjective. In many languages today, the copula was dropped in this formation, turning the participle itself into the past tense.
The Slavic languages innovated an entirely new aspectual distinction between imperfective and perfective verbs, based on derivational formations.